There are cat games on phones which move fake bugs around and disable all screen controls other than reacting to touch to move the bugs, and they do keep some cats interested, probably the same ones who chase flashlight beams or laser pointers. Someone could probably get a Nobel (or Ig Nobel) for explaining why some cats ignore them.
More seriously, I do not believe that phones and TikTok are dangerously different. When Youtube first showed up, it was easy to get distracted by cat videos. When I was a kid, I was distracted by trees. I climbed every tree in our yard. I climbed trees in neighbors' and friends' yards, and at the school playground. But eventually I only climbed new trees, then only trees of a different type (oak trees, pine trees, almond and walnut and cherry and apple trees), and then pretty much gave it up for walls and ladders, then gave that up, and seldom even think of climbing things again.
So it will be with TikTok. It is not an existential threat. Kids will outgrow it as they become adults.
ETA: P.S. I sent a DVD of Buster Keaton's silent movie The General to a friend with a bouncy 5-year-old. She got sick and tired of the piano accompaniment but found he was just as fascinated with the sound way down or off. I put it to (a) being silent meant expressions and makeup had to be exaggerated to get the message across, and (b) being a comedy. You can get fantastic collections of all the silent comedians' movies, and they might be even better than cartoons if parents want a little quiet, and they are much better stories than the Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy talkies.
ETA2: P.P.S. Look up Laurel and Hardy's dance routine from Way Out West. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of clips with modern soundtracks, sort of like the reverse of adding Yakkety Sax to goofy videos. I can't think of a single kid who would not be entranced by them.
I appreciate the reminder that the 20th-century options are still available, and algorithm-free.
Makes me think it might be useful to think of options on a continuum from very algorithm-based content to very agency-based experiences? And I take the point too that not everything needs to be maximally agentic in childhood.
It also seems like the quantity is key. How many people will intend, let alone achieve, limiting their children to 1-2 hours of this time-warped screen time?
Still, I think it’s both a good point and a good response to Scott Alexander!
My wife also notes that the parent-level behaviour with screens of various sorts may be the real underrated factor to calibrate.
This is what we did. Old Sesame Street DVDs and vintage Disney movies. A dumb phone at 16 and they do whatever they want at 18. It's been fine. No regrets.
I've been doing this with my toddler for a while. I put on TV shows on streaming or DVD that I think are well-made enough to not be brain rotting (she's become a big fan of 1940s cartoons like Mickey Mouse and Superman), but no mind-rotting algorithmic TikTok videos. I allow her to play a few educational game apps on the Kindle and let her play Pokemon on my 3DS, but none of those "freemium" games that try to trick you into buying stuff. There's no reason to put a blanket ban on technology when a more narrowly targeted ban will do the trick.
But what's wrong with the pre-"electronic babysitter" methods for keeping kids engaged? If you aren't familiar with those methods, an on-line hardware store specializing in Amish-style products has a kids section:
"Most kids these days seem to spend their lives glued to a smartphone or other electronic gadget. That's too bad, because they're missing out on a big, beautiful world as well as the basic skills they will need to survive and thrive in our real-life world. At Lehman's, we think children today should master digital skills, but we also believe they should be able to benefit from the fun, learning, exercise and imaginative skills that old-fashion toys have provided generations of children. That's why we offer a big selection of children's old-fashioned toys, gifts, books, games and puzzles."
My 2 year old was very good in finding his ways back to Khan Academy Kids if he wanted to - and he quickly found the youtube-app I thought I hid well ;) Otoh, he is into the ABC-videos mostly - I try to keep him from watching those with the Russian alphabet - and he started (some) reading before his 3rd birthday (no Erik Hoel style tutoring from my side). We do have DVDs ofc, of Peppa Pig/Caillou - though Bluey is much better! - but those are clearly a weaker drug, oops, attention-holder. I do agree with Caplan's logic here, obviously true!
Scott Alexander is brilliant. But if you want modern scholarship on how smartphones and social media are bad for young kids, I’d reach for Jonathan Haidt.
I’m not really sure of your fundamental point here. If it’s to say, it’s fine to plunk your kids down in front of tv for a hour to get some stuff done (cuz we were plunked down similarly as kids and none the worse for wear), I totally agree.
But if you’re saying TV to gen X = social media to gen Z or gen alpha, so it’s fine to have your 5 yo to doomscroll tik tok while you’re making dinner….id have questions about you.
Well, Scott is to a relevant extent basing his assumptions on Haidt/ the discourse around Haidt. And - as Tyler Cowen -Scott has some doubts about Haidt's claims.
I can second that kids like really old cartoons just as much as newer slop. Not just old Looney Tunes, but old Super Man cartoons, and basically anything that was on TV for more than 3-4 episodes were appreciated by my girls.
In my humble opinion, short videos like Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube shorts will rot your brain. Whereas playing Minecraft is good for you, it's like playing with legos but you happen to be doing it through a screen. You can also lock an iPad to staying in a single application. So, what I recommend is locking the iPad to Minecraft and letting your kid play while you cook dinner or do work or whatever it is. (Endless Alphabet if they are too young to play Minecraft.)
The opinion I voiced on ACX was that "screen time" was always a malformed concept. There are many valuable things that should - or must - be done through a screen.
There are cat games on phones which move fake bugs around and disable all screen controls other than reacting to touch to move the bugs, and they do keep some cats interested, probably the same ones who chase flashlight beams or laser pointers. Someone could probably get a Nobel (or Ig Nobel) for explaining why some cats ignore them.
More seriously, I do not believe that phones and TikTok are dangerously different. When Youtube first showed up, it was easy to get distracted by cat videos. When I was a kid, I was distracted by trees. I climbed every tree in our yard. I climbed trees in neighbors' and friends' yards, and at the school playground. But eventually I only climbed new trees, then only trees of a different type (oak trees, pine trees, almond and walnut and cherry and apple trees), and then pretty much gave it up for walls and ladders, then gave that up, and seldom even think of climbing things again.
So it will be with TikTok. It is not an existential threat. Kids will outgrow it as they become adults.
ETA: P.S. I sent a DVD of Buster Keaton's silent movie The General to a friend with a bouncy 5-year-old. She got sick and tired of the piano accompaniment but found he was just as fascinated with the sound way down or off. I put it to (a) being silent meant expressions and makeup had to be exaggerated to get the message across, and (b) being a comedy. You can get fantastic collections of all the silent comedians' movies, and they might be even better than cartoons if parents want a little quiet, and they are much better stories than the Three Stooges or Laurel and Hardy talkies.
ETA2: P.P.S. Look up Laurel and Hardy's dance routine from Way Out West. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of clips with modern soundtracks, sort of like the reverse of adding Yakkety Sax to goofy videos. I can't think of a single kid who would not be entranced by them.
My kid's second words after the usual were "skip ad!"
I have no regrets.
I appreciate the reminder that the 20th-century options are still available, and algorithm-free.
Makes me think it might be useful to think of options on a continuum from very algorithm-based content to very agency-based experiences? And I take the point too that not everything needs to be maximally agentic in childhood.
It also seems like the quantity is key. How many people will intend, let alone achieve, limiting their children to 1-2 hours of this time-warped screen time?
Still, I think it’s both a good point and a good response to Scott Alexander!
My wife also notes that the parent-level behaviour with screens of various sorts may be the real underrated factor to calibrate.
This is what we did. Old Sesame Street DVDs and vintage Disney movies. A dumb phone at 16 and they do whatever they want at 18. It's been fine. No regrets.
Things I'd never guess, Bryan is a RHPS fan lol. You forgot to mention it's the fiftieth anniversary this year :)
I've been doing this with my toddler for a while. I put on TV shows on streaming or DVD that I think are well-made enough to not be brain rotting (she's become a big fan of 1940s cartoons like Mickey Mouse and Superman), but no mind-rotting algorithmic TikTok videos. I allow her to play a few educational game apps on the Kindle and let her play Pokemon on my 3DS, but none of those "freemium" games that try to trick you into buying stuff. There's no reason to put a blanket ban on technology when a more narrowly targeted ban will do the trick.
Kids are a lot of fun. Having a few meant they played and entertained themselves.
I’m surprised to see that Bryan is a RHPS fan, but I guess I saw Fabio Rojas at a showing, so I shouldn’t be too surprised
'featuring responses to Nate Hilger, Scott Alexander, and Lyman Stone'
Working class people who dont live in US but read a lot need this to to hit replacement fertility
But what's wrong with the pre-"electronic babysitter" methods for keeping kids engaged? If you aren't familiar with those methods, an on-line hardware store specializing in Amish-style products has a kids section:
https://www.lehmans.com/category/toys-books-games
The author of this page explains:
"Most kids these days seem to spend their lives glued to a smartphone or other electronic gadget. That's too bad, because they're missing out on a big, beautiful world as well as the basic skills they will need to survive and thrive in our real-life world. At Lehman's, we think children today should master digital skills, but we also believe they should be able to benefit from the fun, learning, exercise and imaginative skills that old-fashion toys have provided generations of children. That's why we offer a big selection of children's old-fashioned toys, gifts, books, games and puzzles."
My 2 year old was very good in finding his ways back to Khan Academy Kids if he wanted to - and he quickly found the youtube-app I thought I hid well ;) Otoh, he is into the ABC-videos mostly - I try to keep him from watching those with the Russian alphabet - and he started (some) reading before his 3rd birthday (no Erik Hoel style tutoring from my side). We do have DVDs ofc, of Peppa Pig/Caillou - though Bluey is much better! - but those are clearly a weaker drug, oops, attention-holder. I do agree with Caplan's logic here, obviously true!
Scott Alexander is brilliant. But if you want modern scholarship on how smartphones and social media are bad for young kids, I’d reach for Jonathan Haidt.
I’m not really sure of your fundamental point here. If it’s to say, it’s fine to plunk your kids down in front of tv for a hour to get some stuff done (cuz we were plunked down similarly as kids and none the worse for wear), I totally agree.
But if you’re saying TV to gen X = social media to gen Z or gen alpha, so it’s fine to have your 5 yo to doomscroll tik tok while you’re making dinner….id have questions about you.
Well, Scott is to a relevant extent basing his assumptions on Haidt/ the discourse around Haidt. And - as Tyler Cowen -Scott has some doubts about Haidt's claims.
I can second that kids like really old cartoons just as much as newer slop. Not just old Looney Tunes, but old Super Man cartoons, and basically anything that was on TV for more than 3-4 episodes were appreciated by my girls.
In my humble opinion, short videos like Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube shorts will rot your brain. Whereas playing Minecraft is good for you, it's like playing with legos but you happen to be doing it through a screen. You can also lock an iPad to staying in a single application. So, what I recommend is locking the iPad to Minecraft and letting your kid play while you cook dinner or do work or whatever it is. (Endless Alphabet if they are too young to play Minecraft.)
The opinion I voiced on ACX was that "screen time" was always a malformed concept. There are many valuable things that should - or must - be done through a screen.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2014/06/30/quantification
But while screens are valuable, access to the internet should be restricted. Keep things local.